Fluid Facts of Life Forces and the Dark Mirror of Consciousness and Matter

Fluid Facts of Life Forces and the Dark Mirror of Consciousness and Matter

(What is this Confluence of Theses that Imagines or Perceives Water Memory)

L. Edgar Otto     03 May, 2012

From my pragmatic and existential stance of non-necessity as a method of balances and enquiry there are no given facts other than the fact that none are necessarily given.

To state otherwise on some issue of theory can be a matter of ideology and all its paradoxes of our ideas of tension and compression of real and abstract things.  Given two parties the outcome of finding a truth or certainty that persists or is a resource accessible in reference over time is the deeper philosophic issue of what is the memory of which the evidence by even experiment is not even a compromise of what is decidable- nor as an extension of memory into the near future time would a resolution  behind the scenes as multi-party be a unique one but only of reasonable certainty's for the enactment of political will is globally uncertain for ultimate facts. Here too our intensions for adherence to a position may in fact flip what we thought we were doing without intended actions. (note the spell checker only accepts the common term intention while philosophers make a distinction when the word is spelled intention).

To find the view of that hidden and beneath compression, or to retro-engineer the reasoning that compactifies down to it, is to be struck by the vision of totality as if a mystical awakening or one that grounds the physics in a concrete and common sense.  In this respect it is natural to associate memory and consciousness, or consciousness with the field or gauge like ideas of a centered "magnetic and body".

It is difficult for one party to switch to the view of the other and being at the core of thought system and will evoke conflicts in the change of belief to which the other side may regard the mirror theory as empty or emotionally as a threat, a blasphemy. It threatens the board as well as the game.

Yet in the spirit of a reductionist science we seem to converge in the details of such theories as we seem to be talking about the same bigger picture of our experience in being.  The key division as the confluence of rivers are distinct awhile on the same trace toward the sea that we quite imagine returns all such questions again to vanishing or relights them again by radiation pressure and its great guarded secret as an advantage along the way meets the abstract ideas of an analogy of pressure of the vacuum.

We tend to want to preserve the peaceful debate and civil discourse before the twilight of ourselves creative and immortal, in the openness of vision or as the world goes on to no definite end despite us, we accept that we are blind.

That is the essential difference when our isolated workers in no unified system have different heartbeats and seem immortal in the line, beats that have to compromise and synchronize and thus reinforce the reality of a line or in a general state of things has to bear or correct the fact of shared being with the toleration of some amount of corruption of this sort of counting data.  As with Feynman the mechanism is not known, only that the mathematics and the theory works but does not claim it knows the ultimate nature of the physics of things like mass and gravity that in itself is the vision and assumed all there is to some uncaring points of the unknown.

Those who have approached the dream the other way, both parties justified in their fact being as human beings, - you know who you are or should despite what veneer of scientific terminology you have painted the pyramids at the foundations.  To you in the remote extreme we know all about the mystery of the vision as if it alive and disembodied from the mechanism of which we know nothing but that it is empty- that as an organism we may be such a machine but at least a self correcting machine even by accidental creation.

All this said I can compare my own personal experiences to those of others and perhaps generalized them that I can see with X-ray vision these structures of  matter and consciousness to which physics seems to be developing even if all parties are not aware of where it is going or what is truly new or not at any frontier of disillusion or awakenings.

I recall one such activity of thinking and drawing, not having the intention to achieve a theory or vision or knowing just why other than private curiosity I was doing such a thing- my own initial vision of the four space chess did have a lot of power as an inspiration but it too was a precarious tight rope of doubts between truths and fantasy as mechanism be it grounding on non necessity or not.  It did seem to me to be a vision, an awakening, but a lesser one than those that shake us sometimes to our core.  My immediate conclusion after counting the quarks and electrons in models of atoms was to say to myself, the sentiment perhaps, "At last I understand what matter is."

Now being at a stage where ending of a tractate is possible and shoring up fitting conclusions- I played around again with this old simple concept of the mid 70 or thereabouts trying to keep my mind alert in the habit of study waiting again for university admissions (my intention was to eventually leave the arms of Golda Meyer and do genetic research in Madison, learn Chinese perhaps, both things because I still felt young enough.)  So again such a vision came in the student cafeteria, perhaps the distraction and the din and the discussions from time to time, or the complaints on teachers enhances the atmosphere of learning, perhaps the blocking out of the confusion of other minds that seems almost a chaotic non linear state of things.

So, thinking about our half dialogs here, in the comments again on Pitkanen on water memory, and Ulla on intentions, that whole era of research- the question of what amounted to the search for new anthropology or the suppression of it, a sort of division politically between the new age hippies and the born again fundamentalist right, and the principles as reacted to by Kea and all of us with the intellect to entertain new view- including Rowlands and so on. I tried last night to take a look again at such counting and the numbers although with too wide an interpretation tends to add up- I should look at it more formally and yet I remain in the dark at what we are trying or tending to see.  Will any of us have a deep and conclusive vision enough to say rather than merely suggests as if sound intuitions "At last I understand the heart of dark matter."

I also followed a blogger who posted recently on a conference at Ohio State- and in the abstracts of those presenting the papers I clearly see issues of which I have discussed recently in my progress- for example the flatness of tori, or for that matter what is hyperbolic and wormhole like in the wider visions (and wider generalizations discussed as a possibility too) to which I try to relate Pitkanen's system.  Certainly there are parallel ideas in the abstract concerning the role of numbers including statistical methods of the primes.  So, apparently while I do not know what they teach in the universities our questions if not our theories are frontier in the state of the art.

In the godlike Olympia of theory at such frontiers as worked by some individual with the freedom to do so and with the authority all new theories are not understood or advanced in real world applications enough to judge or or raise some issues of emotional conflict or even dismissal as unsound if not in the individual themselves - such as Nash in his what amounts to these Bosonic like ideas of counting base systems that so develop in the count of quarks and so on- it is easier to so criticize or evaluate or dismiss as not relevant to a discussion so to demean ones own position if not to instinctively avoid a scandalous trap for the whole if someone in his ecstatic vision at perhaps a foundational level pops up out of nowhere and needs the feedback of dialog outside the universities- where it seem most progress is made anyway even among the original and fundamental thinkers there.  Of course in the foundation of a new and separate state we may match our practical tinkers early on to the number of them from the old country- but the prestige and influences of these change or are artificially subsidized for the fact of a state that rewrites the spelling even as well diverges in its taste in music or range of what it can see or accept as methods of enquiry.

At this time I rather think we see parts of one such vision of the new physics including old mythologies and the unlikely fact of viable numerologies.  Each of us can claim the discovery if translated to our own symbols from the whole.  We cannot really say we do not understand each other in the ultimate theories.  That to me is philosophically and scientifically irrelevant to the purpose of discovery at hand.

Do we all assert like Kea that in the quarks, in the formalism at a distance to the given matrix of particle mixing for example that we find there the Dark Matter explicitly- I have suggested that in the counting it seems and it does lead to generalizations like dark methods, dark atoms and so on.  But what nails it down as a real possibility is the consideration of the earlier role of Hydrogen and Helium and their isotopes as surely as we need to nail down the controversial symmetries of the precursors to our 64 base codon system- it resolves biology to these analytic methods of the physics and may make things clearer if we reach to even greater depths of assumptions and generalizations. Of course we are talking about water, heavy and light, and then the big bang like concept that leads to the next level of matter beginning with Lithium, thru the symmetry breaking, through the rise and fall of the points of fission or fusion as dominant, and presumably to the 120th element or beyond.

But it is still not clear to me what Pitkanen uniquely may mean by water memory as even more foundational systems other than the fact that is seems there is some way the information contained in a sequence of DNA destroyed can come back from the context or perhaps its equivalent from its parts in a context.  And this is a fact we keep on the back burner as if an innocuous mystery and not an urgent anomaly.

But in the process and the theory not yet clear to me to post as such or find an adequate drawing I did find a new idea as to the mechanism which was a generalization of one of my first principles of how nucleons are held together but applied, and pragmatically so and not in awestruck vision- yet in the general take on things I see where our thoughts on the structures of particles still endure as if a faith in things nearly similar in theory and are anathema to those who tweak the standard theory and the general cosmology.

We certainly do learn things say by the classification of the proteins as hydrophobic or the more general way they have rates of interactions with particular imagined perturbations and actual combination ordering but about all I can say now is I am in agreement with Steven King in his book Cujo- it is the virus that bites and not the rabid dog.  Or perhaps in some sense both parties come together that this description of systems can be one thing as we perhaps are beginning to see in the greater influence on our evolution than thought for the role of viruses that the context and the matter are the same thing as a mechanism or physical reality- but non necessarily so.

* * * * *

This science daily article seems to me to vaguely relate to the TGD discussion and the models for the geometry and dynamics that may involve water memory- that and his next post that discusses the galactic planes and evidences of dark matter- these seem to me to be connected as theory.